Not sure this consistent attitude from Archie is motivating this team. This is a nice sentiment for an IU loyal fan, but a coach needs to show a little fire & light these guys up a little. The play was better in parts with Iowa, but they play so soft like the coddled kids today - no feel of urgency. The majority of the team doesn't even appear upset on the court after these losses, at least not as they should be.
"I'm proud of our guys, and we continue to play at a very high level in terms of our effort."
- Thread starter Hoosier in SC
- Start date
Did he say this to the team in practice, or to the press?
Trying to read the minds of others, is not possible. And, even interpreting behavior is not easy to do. You may be right or you may be wrong when you say players are not "upset" after a loss.
Tweet. And i understand the difference, but it seems to be a consistent attitude. Maybe not a full on RMK drag them back to the gym after a loss to practice, but somewhere in the middle.
Most coaches try to not throw their players unders the bus... They do, usually, play hard, but the roster is extremely limited. They have been outstanding defensively considering the youth in key positions and lack of size/strength. I wouldn't sleep on next year being much better, especially if shooters are added...
Wvery coach I've ever heard starts with "We've got to do a better job of...."
Praising effort during a massive losing streak doesn't really help. It is slightly different if he just says "they played hard enough to win today but didn't do the things necessary to seal a win against a good team on the road".
Another coach once said this instead:
"People want national championship banners. People want to talk about Indiana being competitive. How do we get there? We don't get there with milk and cookies."
"People want national championship banners. People want to talk about Indiana being competitive. How do we get there? We don't get there with milk and cookies."
Well.....in every PC he does get around to what you're saying in the last sentence, but I understand what you're saying.....the emphasis seems to be more on the 'I'm proud of the effort, they're playing hard', which is somewhat disconcerting.
Obviously, many of us are used to a ranter, who also happened to be one of the best coaches ever. But we have to acknowledge that Knight was one of a kind. When I look at the most successful coaches, most had approaches much different from Knight:
--Wooden: calm, disciplined, analytical
--D. Smith: calm, disciplined, analytical
--D. Crum: calm, disciplined, analytical
--Jay Wright: calm, disciplined, analytical
--J. Boeheim: excitable, 'player's coach'
--Bill Self: excitable & disciplined, 'player's coach'
--Mike K.: excitable, disciplined, analytical
--Tom Izzo: very excitable, will call out players, focus on toughness, 'player's coach'
--B. Knight: ranter, disciplined, analytical, will call out players
--J. Calhoun: excitable, focus on toughness
--J. Calipari: excitable, disciplined, 'player's coach'
--R. Williams: excitable, disciplined
By "disciplined", I mean a special emphasis on disciplined team play, not personal discipline in coaching style.
Back to the point.......I don't remember most of the guys above specifically generally calling out players for lack of toughness, stupid play et al. Most of the time those kind of players just quietly ended up at the end of the bench. I think Izzo & Knight are the most notable exceptions to not calling players out.
It seems to me that the qualities most necessary to being a 'great' coach are being analytical and expecting disciplined team play. By "analytical", I mean able to adjust to different styles, able to dial up plays, strategic.....
I see our late coach Crean as an excitable players coach. By "player's coach" I mean someone who is ultimately focused on talent, having good personal relations with the players, emphasizing playing hard over strict discipline.
I see Archie as excitable, disciplined, and a 'player's coach'. He's like Crean in that he ultimately wants top-flight talent (see Sean Miller), and he doesn't think calling out players will be helpful to that end. He wants good players that play hard in his system. He'll live with mistakes it he gets that (v. a guy like Knight, or even Painter). Unlike Crean, I think he has little interest in being the player's buddy--he just doesn't want to piss them off so much that they make a scene. He doesn't want disruption. Why else would he have re-recruited Cliff Moore? He'll get whatever he can out of guys like Smith & Green. Also unlike Crean (a 'roll out the ball' coach), he is a system guy.....that is, he's wedded to a system and lacks flexibility. He lacks the upside analytical ability of a guy like Knight. Knight hated the idea of the 3 point line and fought against its introduction....then his first team under the 3 point line led the country in 3 pt %. Knight's teams ran against Maryland in 1981 & UNLV in 1987. I don't see Archie making those kind of calls.
I really think whatever he does with Smith & Green for next year will be critical. I personally sense that both are beyond redemption, and that quietly assisting them out the door is essential. For them to be of use, their roles must be strictly defined and limited. I don't see either accepting those roles. It will continue to be a festering problem. I'm concerned that Archie will continue to think he can manage them.
I don't know that I agree with all of your points but I agree with many of them. And, they all made me pause and think. These are the qualities I look for in a solid post.
Interesting post mushroom.
I think in studying the players from the Crean years in everything from interviews to tweets to radio blogs, i have seen a trend in great loyalty to IU from each of them, even Remy to some degree, and certainly Mo Creek. But I have rarely seen much in the way of comments, support, or open praise toward Crean, and that, to me tells me he was NOT a player's coach. A good example is seeing young Watford taking a hard look at IU but really not at all entertaining UGA despite the full and prosperous career his bro Christian had under Tom Crean. I don't hear negatives, but it looks like the Watfords are warm for IU but maybe not so much Crean. At least not enough to look at his new school despite the close proximity. Perhaps there are some underlying SEC allegiances there though as well. Maybe Georgia has always been off limits to aby Watford, who knows?
Still, even Vic hasn't shown a ton of love for Crean but he and Cody sure love being Hoosiers and are proud members of the IU basketball family.
Anyway, i think a lot of your analysis is really good and you had excellent synopsis of a league of coaches with rep.
I think in studying the players from the Crean years in everything from interviews to tweets to radio blogs, i have seen a trend in great loyalty to IU from each of them, even Remy to some degree, and certainly Mo Creek. But I have rarely seen much in the way of comments, support, or open praise toward Crean, and that, to me tells me he was NOT a player's coach. A good example is seeing young Watford taking a hard look at IU but really not at all entertaining UGA despite the full and prosperous career his bro Christian had under Tom Crean. I don't hear negatives, but it looks like the Watfords are warm for IU but maybe not so much Crean. At least not enough to look at his new school despite the close proximity. Perhaps there are some underlying SEC allegiances there though as well. Maybe Georgia has always been off limits to aby Watford, who knows?
Still, even Vic hasn't shown a ton of love for Crean but he and Cody sure love being Hoosiers and are proud members of the IU basketball family.
Anyway, i think a lot of your analysis is really good and you had excellent synopsis of a league of coaches with rep.
Similar threads
